The creation of Linguistic States is a burning
question of the day. I regret that owing to my illness I was not able to take part in the
debate that took place in Parliament much less in the campaign that is carried on in the
country by partisans in favour of their views. The question is too important for me to
sleep over in silence. Many have accused me for remaining quiet not knowing what the cause
was.

I have therefore taken the other alternative
i.e. to set out my views in writing.

Readers may find certain inconsistencies in my
views as expressed in this brochure and as expressed formerly in certain public
statements. Such changes in my view are, I am sure, very few. The former statements were
made on the basis of fragmentary data. The whole picture was then not present to the mind.
For the first time it met my eye when the report of the S.R.C.
came out. This is sufficient justification for any change
in my views which a critic may find.

To a critic who is a hostile and malicious
person and who wants to make capital out of my inconsistencies my reply is straight.
Emerson has said that consistency is the virtue of an ass and I don't wish to make an ass
of myself. No thinking human being can be tied down to a view once expressed in the name
of consistency. More important than consistency is responsibility. A responsible person
must learn to unlearn what he has learned. A responsible person must have the courage to
rethink and change his thoughts. Of course there must be good and sufficient reasons for
unlearning what he has learned and for recasting his thoughts. There can be no finality in
thinking.

The formation of
Linguistic States, although essential, cannot be decided by any sort of hooliganism.
Nor must it be solved in a manner that will serve party interest. It must be solved by
cold blooded reasoning. This is what I have done and this is what I appeal to my readers
to do.

The present Constitution of India recognises
the following States which are enumerated in the Schedule :

Part A States

Part B States

Part C States

1.Andhra

1.Hyderabad

1.Ajmer

2.Assam

2.Jammu & Kashmir

2.Bhopal

3.Bihar

3.Madhya Bharat

3.Coorg

4.Bombay

4.Mysore

4.Delhi

5.Madhya Pradesh

5.Patiala

5.Himachal Pradesh

6.Madras

6.Rajasthan

6.Kutch

7.Orissa

7.Saurashtra

7.Manipur

8.Punjab

8.Travancore - Cochin

8.Tripura

9.Uttar Pradesh

9.Vindhya Pradesh

Article 3 of the Constitution gives power to Parliament to create new States. This was
done because there was no time to reorganize the States on linguistic basis for which
there was a great demand.

In pursuance of this incessant demand the Prime
Minister appointed the States Reorganisation Commission to
examine the question. In its report the States
Reorganisation Commission has recommended the creation of the following States:

Proposed
New States

Name of the State

Area (Sq. Miles)

Population (Crores)

Language

Madras

50,170

3.00

Tamil

Kerala

14,980

1.36

Malyalam

Karnatak

72,730

1.90

Kanarese

Hyderabad

45,300

1.13

Telugu

Andhra

64,950

2.09

Telugu

Bombay

151,360

4.02

Mixed

Vidarbha

36,880

0.76

Marathi

Madhya Pradesh

171,200

2.61

Hindi

Rajasthan

132,300

1.60

Rajasthani

Punjab

58,140

1.72

Punjabi

Uttar Pradesh

113,410

6.32

Hindi

Bihar

66,520

3.82

Hindi

West Bengal

34,590

2.65

Bengali

Assam

89,040

0.97

Assamese

Orissa

60,140

1.46

Oria

Jammu and Kashmir

92,780

0.14

Kashmiri

The important thing is to compare the size of
the states -

Taking population as the measuring red the
result may be presented as follows:

There are 8 states with a population between 1
and 2 crores each.

There are 4 states with a population between 2
and 4 crores each.

There is one state above 4 crores.

There is one state above 6 crores.

The result, to say the least, is fantastic. The
Commission evidently thinks that the size of a state is a matter of no consequence and
that the equality in the size of the status constituting a federation is a matter of no
moment.

This is the first and the most terrible error
cost which the commission has committed. If not rectified in time, it will Indeed be a
great deal.

In the first chapter it has been pointed out
that one result of the recommendations of the states Reorganisation Commission is the
disparity in the size of the different States the Commission has suggested for creation.

But there is another fault in the
recommendation of the commission which perhaps is hidden but which is nonetheless real.

It lies in not considering the North in
relation to the South.This will be clear
from following table :

This scheme of
dividing India in the name of Linguistic States cannot be overlooked. It is not so
innocuous as the Commission thinks. It is full of poison. The poison must be emptied right
now.

The nature of Union of India expresses only an
idea. It does not indicate an achievement. Bryce in his "American Commonwealth " relates the following
incident which is very instructive. This is what he says :

" A few years ago theAmerican Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied
at its annual conference in revising liturgy. It was thought desirable to introduce among
the short sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people;
and an eminent New England Divine proposed the words ' 0 Lord, bless our Nation '.
Accepted one afternoon on the spur of the moment, the
sentence was brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were raised
by the laity to the word, ' Nation ', as importing too
definite recognition of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the words, ' 0 Lord,
bless these United States.'"

India is not even mentally and morally fit to call itself the United States
of India. We have to go a long way to become the United States of India. The Union of
India is far, far away, from the United States of India. But this consolidation of the
North and balkanisation of the South is not the way to
reach it.